Matias Nicolas
-
Posts
216 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Matias Nicolas
-
-
Hi! Im going to shoot a miniature: a tree falling down breaking a fence on the woods scale 1:10. The art dept is building rhe maquet. I read in the AC manual that for scale 1:10 I need to shoot al 75 fps to feel real a miniature tree falling. But what about lenses and T stop? And light? How should I do to feel It realistic and natural?
-
Hi! I have to shoot a miniature: a tree falling down and crashing to the floor in scale 1:10. I read in the AC manual that that I should shoot it al 75 fps. But whixh lense docyou recomend? Wide angle? Normal? Which T stop? Distance ro object? What about light?
-
Hi! I have to shoot a miniature: a tree falling down and crashing to the floor in scale 1:10. I read in the AC manual that that I should shoot it al 75 fps. But whixh lense docyou recomend? Wide angle? Normal? Which T stop? Distance ro object? What about light?
-
Haze moves with the wind no matter what, so first thing is to hope for less wind that day. The other thing is to surround the space with haze so that even when it moves, there is always haze. Typically you'd use a "tube of death" rig -- long plastic visqueen tubes running from smoke machines with small holes cut into the tube to leak smoke out over the length of the tube. You'd run these tubes through the woods behind bushes, ideally so the smoke drifted into the shot.
This video has a demo of the rig, though they have it a bit close to the action so the smoke is too sourcey.
And, a
A lot will depend on how hot the ground gets during the day, and how much the temperature drops once it gets dark. If there is a big difference in temperature, you'll definitely get updrafts of air as the ground cools. Cooler temps, and humidity seem to help the haze hang in the air.
And which is the best way for you to illuminate a jungle, with this haze, and not seeing the white light when the haze in near the haze that you start kind of seeing the lights?
-
Another factor to consider, other than wind, is that if the temperature is high during the day, when the sun goes down the ground begins to cool, and the release of heat back into the air will create updrafts that will clear your haze very quickly.
So, to shoot in a cold place or hot place changes the haze? Cause Im shooting in a hot and humid jungle (ground level cero).. But we are doing tests in the woods, ground level 1000mts above the sea (cause the jungle location is really far from the production company).. Do yo think this chages sth in the moving or not of the haze?
-
For really kick ass smoke, somewhere in LA is a smoke machine attached to or built into a truck mounted jet engine turbine. I’ve only seen it once while working on war of the worlds. That thing smoked up whole city blocks with no problem.
Cool, but our problem ithat we need the smoke to stay without moving..
-
Haze moves with the wind no matter what, so first thing is to hope for less wind that day. The other thing is to surround the space with haze so that even when it moves, there is always haze. Typically you'd use a "tube of death" rig -- long plastic visqueen tubes running from smoke machines with small holes cut into the tube to leak smoke out over the length of the tube. You'd run these tubes through the woods behind bushes, ideally so the smoke drifted into the shot.
This video has a demo of the rig, though they have it a bit close to the action so the smoke is too sourcey.
Jaja... excelent video! Yes.. We are trying sth similar, but is not working really cause we are having some wind... And I hate! when smoke moves...
-
Hi, which is the best way to have a dense haze in the woods and not seeing the haze moving? So as to see the light of the flashligths?
-
HDR is created in post. It's virtually impossible to monitor HDR on set anyway. The advice I was given was that I should use a camera with as high a bit depth as possible, and make sure to protect my highlights, as blown out windows and other clipped whites are a problem in HDR.
Ok, but what happens in the dark areas... should I bounce some or more light in the shadows? what happens with specularities?
-
Hi, I'll be shooting a tv serial, contemplating the HDR. That means, shooting digital as if it was a negative, thinking of future technology. As today you can buy an HDR tv, there is no content for HDR yet. So they are trying us, dp's, to start thinking in HDR when shooting digital..
Any expierence?
-
My cheap backup torch which doesn't dim and has an unscrewable front (to easily put in CTO) has been used to replace the art depts torches more times than I care to count. Simple, cheap torches that don't have a complicated PCB with PWM dimming are the way to go.
On a horror feature the DP had a LOT of torches but very few spares as there were so many characters. Switching out gels wasn't really doable on the time scale so bounce boards and spark operated torches were used often to fill in where necessary.
We rather liked having different colour temps for the different groups/characters as sometimes that was the only way you could see which character was where. Something to think about before getting the colour meter out and perfectly matching 20 brands of torches together :P
Can you explain a little more : '' so bounce boards and spark operated torches were used often to fill in where necessary"
Cause im going to shoot a horror movie with lots of scenes with torches in a cave, and we wan't to feel real inside it.
-
As an aside, we faked night vision on a 35mm short film by shooting at dusk with a video camera and feeding that into a Steadicam III CRT monitor (they are green) and shooting that with the film camera.
ok.. but i need to shoot everything at nigh... its better to go for higher iso? to put a light like a lite panel? to use a green filter in front of the lens? what do you recommend?
-
Be aware that some people also refer as MK1 to the previous series of lenses, the T1.4's with the three-blade iris (see my test), which are usually known as High Speeds or "B-Speeds", cause they are in Bayonet mount (they can be put on PL mount with a hard or removable PL adapter). The T1.4's came out circa 1975 ("Taxi Driver" was among the first movies to use them because they were owned by C.Op. Fred Schuler) and the first generation of T1.3's circa 1983 already in PL mount.
Problem is that Zeiss never came out with an official name for these sets of lenses. So you should check that the Mk1's you have found are actually T1.3's and not PL converted T1.4's.
ok ! Yes, I remember the Zeiss set lenses with bayonete & PL adaptor ... and the traingular bhookes... but I will avoid those lenses I think ... But I need the 1.3 !! jej
-
Hi!
I'm shooting a film in a couple weeks, and one of our night scenes calls for our actors to be holding flashlights (which will be lighting key areas of the scene/action). These flashlights may be the only light source(s) in the scene.
I would like these flashlights to be as bright as possible, and spread their light very wide (not be super focused). We are shooting at 23.976 fps, ISO 800, at 5K with a RED Epic.
Do you have any recommended flashlights for these conditions? I am interested in LED flashlights but am concerned about flicker.
Thank you for your help,
Suzanne
HI, i'm shooting a horror sci fi movie in 2 two months, and I'm having the same issue. FLashlites with dimmer (not a real dimmer, but you push the back botton, and youll have 3 positions of less light, strobo, and S.O.S signal ... those flashlights allways flicker when dimming...
You can try it without dimming, or choose one without dimmer. THe maglite allways are very powerfull... and as Phill sais, its better to have 3 flashlights, one for long distances, and anotherones for short distance, with some ND filter inside.. And watch out batteries ... yo'll need a lot !
-
If you intend to shoot the display screen of a night-vision tube intensifier, there are difficulties unless you have a specific kit to mount that device onto a camera. I understand, maybe wrongly that the display resolution of a 2/3" intensifier in the Gen 3 or Gen 4 class is still only about 72 line pairs per mm at best. That is around about the sharpness of standard definition television.
By the time you frame out the circular display edge from your rectangular camera image, the resolution is reduced by about a third.
For dramatic purposes, the circular image might be retained as a porthole in the rectangular camera image. I understand that for most motion picture dramas, a clean image is shot with a conventional camera, colour-desaturated, tinted green and the signature artifacts of the intensifier tube display added in post-production.
Those artifacts are in case of over-bright image are hex outlines across the image replicating the stacked coherent fibre bundles of the image-inverting device within the intensifier tube or a sparking noise in the vision which in night-vision speak is defined as scintillation. Overbright areas within the intensified image are sometimes replicated by letting the originating camera image blow out the highlights.
This image was shot a Gen 2 intensifier of 60 line pairs resolution. For much of the tine there was sufficient lighting for a modern high gain camera to aquire a usable image and I had to close the aperture on the taking lens to outdoors daylight levels tgo avoid blowing the tube image out. Because of adequate light levels, there is no gain noise or scintillation in the intensifier display. You will observe I chose a compromise between portholing the display image entirely or cropping out the circle altogether.
In this image with the same Gen 2 intensifier, I was experimenting with a Metabones speedbooster for BMPCC in the optical path between the intensifier tube and the taking lens which brings the "apparent" image recovery up into the Gen 3 class. Of course a Gen 3 would perform even better with the same optical setup.
You will observe that the sharpness in the image drops off in the much lower lighting conditions and the scintillation artifact challenges the camera's compression scheme.
My personal preference would be to go with conventional camerawork and add the effects in post.
Good answer !! thanks! I think I'll probably shoot with the Sony F55 4k Raw, with a lite panel on top, ... and make some test's. Then I will add green, grain, contrast, etx, in color correction !
-
It depends on what is your quality standard.. Obvoisuly it's better to choose a set of 4 filters instead of one: 1 for nd.3, another for n.d6 , 1n.9, 1nd1.2, 1.5 ..etc ... With variable's nd you loose some quality: image turns a little green, and you'll have problems with sunlight coming on to your lense... But, if you only want a variable nd filter, choose allways the best brand....
Tiffen is not on your list?... yo should try that one ...
-
Bear in mind all series of T1.3 share the same glass & optical design, the upgrades were all mechanical. So you can actually shoot with Mk1-Mk2-Mk3 as there wont be differences between the series.
O! thats a good info !!! thanks !!! cause there is an old set of MK1 in Colombia ..
-
The jungle can be pretty dark to begin with, depending on which jungle you're in.
Might I recommend day-for-night work? Jo Willems did day-for-night on Catching Fire in the jungle scenes. Quite frankly, it was some of the best day-for-night I've seen
We are trying to avoid day for night.. case me need to feel dark in the jungle.. it's a terror sciene fiction movie ... me need to hice the monsters, and we have torchs, flashlights, etc... but thanks !!
Although, how is the best MUST's to shoot day for night? Sun light is better? or better a cloudy day? I really never done day for night ...
-
Hello Matias, you can certainly shoot T2.1's wide-open and get a more than usable image. Don't know if that lenses suit your needs better or not... you should really test them together and get your own idea I think. Sometimes I prefer the Standards over Superspeeds just because they have many more focal lenghts available, but for certain situations the T1.3's maybe more desirable because they don't vignette as much and have that extra stop.
I have another test of the T1.3's:
[VIDEO]
[/VIDEO]We will be shooting between the 24 - 35 & 50 lenses... Its true its difficult to find more lenses in between ... And Im shooting in Bogota, Colombia, and there is only one set of these mkIII ... production is panning to subrent them from Mexico ..
It's a pitty the 2.1 vignette in the corners...
-
Hello Matias, you can certainly shoot T2.1's wide-open and get a more than usable image. Don't know if that lenses suit your needs better or not... you should really test them together and get your own idea I think. Sometimes I prefer the Standards over Superspeeds just because they have many more focal lenghts available, but for certain situations the T1.3's maybe more desirable because they don't vignette as much and have that extra stop.
I have another test of the T1.3's:
We are plannning to shoot with these lenses, only to smooth the sharpness of the Sony F55.
That is our only main goal about this equipment. But what i've seen in your test... mmmm... I think I don't really like the way T1.3 or T1.4 perform in the image, I need to see it with a skin ... but at 1.3 ...
-
Check out Shelly Johnson's gorgeous work on The Wolfman for a more expressionist reference. And Tim Ives' fantastic night exteriors on Stranger Things for a slick, modern approach.
Cool reference ! But we are looking sth more real .. like "The Ritual"- a terror movie ... this one works more to the look we are looking for..
-
Maybe you should consider too the Zeiss T2.1 Standard Primes. They perform well below T2.8 without being too vintage, but neither too sharp or contrasty. They match T1.3’s well, but they vignette more. I use the T2.1’s often to fill the missing focal lenghts of the T1.3’s, such as the 40mm or 135mm.
Well, as I didn't shoot with the MKIII ever before, your knowldege for me is important... cause it is hard to find 2 sets of highspeed in Colombia. But I think I can find 2 sets of 2.1 here, and also additional lenses... Do you really think, it is better to shoot with the 2.1 Car Zeiss? Cause I was planning to shoot really wide open... I've shot with the 2.1 some stuf in the past and I like, them... Now Im more use to shoot with S4 or similar price... but the directors are insisting to shoot with the MKIII... cause they want to soften the image
also I prefer to avoid a Softfx... I don't really like those filters, and get messy with flares... they wash all the image when flareing lights to the lense...
-
You'll probably find more trouble shooting at T1.3 than advantages. You can always shoot SuperSpeeds at T1.8-T2.5, give your focus puller a chance and still get a softer & lower contrast image than that of Masters and Ultras. If they are still to sharp to your eyes, you can always use a very light Soft FX or the lightest Black Promist.
At T1.3 these lenses are very soft, very low in contrast and show too many aberrations for most situations.
Here's a test I've just released comparing the T1.3's to the previous series of Zeiss High Speeds, the T1.4's:
[VIDEO]
[/VIDEO]Ok! This test is really usefull! thanks !!
... But... have you done it with a person's face?
-
If you google that Sony model, the specs tell you it uses IR for its NightShot mode, by bypassing the IR filter and using IR illumination.
You want image intensifiers to get that green image.
I've been googling for some info, yes... and what I found is that if the night is too dark, I'll probably don't get any imagen.. so I have to light a little but not too much ... and also using sth like a small lite panel or a small tiny led in top of the camera to get the bright on the eyes of the actors... Bt I don;t really know if this camera shoots night vision in 4K, or If I'll loose some quality while shooting with this sony...
Cause the other thing is to shoot with mi sony F55, and the grading it in C correction, but I think I prefer to shoot it real ...
Shootin miniatures
in Lighting for Film & Video
Posted